Teleworker Job Benefits?

Out of town and out of luck

First the reported* facts. Maxine Allen
was employed in New York as a technical specialist by Reuters America,
Inc. from October 1996 to July 1997 when she moved to Florida after
her husband changed jobs.
Reuters continued to employ her as a telecommuter, paying for a phone
line, laptop computer and software. But in March 1999 Reuters terminated
the arrangement and required her to move back to New York if she was
to continue working for the firm. She turned down the offer and became
unemployed. Subsequently she applied for unemployment insurance from
Florida. Florida turned her down because her employer was in New York.
She then applied to the state of New York for unemployment benefits.
New York turned her down because she worked in Florida. Catch 22. Ms.
Allen appealed the decision (without the aid of an attorney) and ultimately
was denied New York benefits by
a 6-0 vote of the Court of Appeals. No reports we have read indicate
the state to which she and/or her employer paid unemployment insurance.

The case seems to hinge on whether Ms.
Allen quit or was fired. If she quit, then she was not entitled to
unemployment benefits. If she was fired, then unemployment benefits
should be paid to her. In an interview on National Public Radio**
Jonathan Rosen, Director of the New York Unemployment Project, said:
"...we would argue that she didn't actually quit. She was effectively
discharged....it's perfectly legitimate to quit a job to follow a spouse
for any number of reasons and still qualify for benefits." Mr. Rosen
went on to say: "They've let her work in Florida for years and years,
said she had to come back or forfeit the job. So, yeah, in a sense
she quit but it's effectively a discharge." Ms. Allen does not plan
to appeal the ruling.

Some of our colleagues state that this
is no different from the case of an out-of-state salesperson who is
called back to the head office. If the salesperson chooses to stay
put and resigns, then no unemployment compensation is due. But is it
the same? Ms. Allen's job apparently was location
independent;
there was no apparent need for her to be in New York since there was
no report of her failure to do her work or of any changes in the work
requirements. What does this portend for other telecommuters?

One thing is certain: the law is very vague on this issue. Since the
law generally takes years, even decades, to catch up with reality this
is likely to be a hot topic in years to come.

*As reported in the New York Times on 3
July 2003 in an article by Al Baker.

Telepicker
is a trademark of JALA International. All other products mentioned are registered
trademarks or trademarks of their respective companies.
Questions or problems regarding this web site should be directed to info at jala.com.
Last modified:
Thursday January 17, 2019.